Georgian propaganda! How do we know it was a Russian MiG, eh Comrade?

Maksimir

@skittlzncombos: That is, by a missile. I get shot down regularly. But that's another story.

skittlzncombos

That was pretty cool. And hopefully the closest I'll ever get to being shot down!

skittlzncombos

POV stuff is always wild to watch.

Kind of a waste though, I think I would have used guns as opposed to a missile.

Of course the Russians are pretty good about that stuff, so I'm sure they were using one close to the end of it's shelf life or something.

The politics I'm unfamiliar with hoever, so I will steer clear of THAT shooting gallery.

strider_mt2k

In Russia missile reconnaissance you.

LoganSix

[pure speculation and conjecture based on observations by an armchair aviation enthusiast]

Yep, the plane appears to be losing altitude when it launches the missle and then accelerates through the missile's trail immediately afterward.

Swung into position, slowed for the launch, launched, and then accelerated afterwards, presumably to fly out of the path of falling debris.

or I'm totally wrong, I don't care.
It's FUN!

strider_mt2k

@Git Em SteveDave: "you should approach from behind and above."

The MiG seemed to be shooting from behind to me. The camera is mounted under the UAV for 360 degrees of viewing, it's not nose mounted. Also, I've always heard "behind and below" is the kill spot.

baltwade

@Git Em SteveDave: They might have edited out the very end, but you're right.
One would expect to see some kind of an alert of some kind on loss of signal.

I wondered about that approach too, but thought maybe the camera had panned to the rear.

The camera looking rearward would explain that angle on the attacking plane, but the thing would have to be going VERY slowly to not be overtaking the UAV (unless it's a quick UAV!)

(I couldn't help watching a couple more times)

strider_mt2k

I enjoyed watching that. If only the UAV were packin' some of it's own missiles. This would have been a pretty sweet mid-air battle.

LyriCa1z

I don't know about this. The jet takes a strange approach vector to this UAV. If you are unsure of it's weapons capability, you should approach from behind and above. This also seems to be pulling a high speed manuver, but doesn't seem to get much bigger as it approaches. UAV's, from what I know, don't move that quickly. Also, air to air missle have a good range, so after they did a fly by, you would think they would fire from a stand off distance. Lastly, even after the missle hits, there is still HUD info shown over the static. I would think that you should be seeing a signal lost message as once it goes boom, All info would cease to be incoming so even if the info was from the receiving end, it should show all zeros or again, no info. Perchance someone has a copy of FinalCut?

Git Em SteveDave

@Slap Bet: Nice.

Subterfuge

@Jason: I want Miss Georgia

DeLarge

@LyriCa1z: Not really. A MIG vs an ex-soviet bloc UAV is kinda a no-brainer :P

Cin

OK so his pizza was late

fastmike

Political update:

Georgia wants to pursue NATO and EU membership.

Russia wants Georgia.

Jason

@Git Em SteveDave: I am guessing here but video and telemetry are being sent to home station via two different channels. Probably telemetry instruments were functional a little bit more than the video feed.

DeLarge

As far as I'm concerned....Georgia needs to equip their UAV's with air to air defense missiles. Once Russia has lost a few multi-million dollar jets versus Georgia's low end UAV's....they'll decide air to air combat isn't worth it anymore.

DCGaymer

@Maksimir: Did you listen to the video at all?

DestroyerMTL

Our UAV is online

Slap Bet

I once did an inverted 4g dive with a MiG28. At a range of about 2 meters. I've got a Polaroid of it, great picture.

Val Kilmer: *cough*bullshit*cough*

scarbrtj

Gotta agree with Git Em SteveDave. Besides, this would be an overkill situation and a missile would be the wrong weapon for the target type. 30mm gun would be used at the range it was at. The pilot, at that range, would have been easily been able to identify the nature of the target and choosen bullets over missiles.

I call BS.

Sukigod

@LoganSix:
I wanted to laugh. I really did. To your credit, you made a valiant effort.

packetsniffer

The tinfoil hat crowd can shut up for once, this one looks completely legit, and it's something that we all know the russians are likely to do. Why? Who knows? He was ordered to, he thought it was in russian airspace, his borscht was cold and he was pissed off?

@SgtMac02: Ouch, dude. Just ouch.

DaOtter

@baltwade: @strider_mt2k: I understand the 360, but if they attacked from behind and above, you would not get the shot as most UAV cameras are mounted on the underside. You also wouldn't have to worry about the debris. But when you fire a missile, you usually do it from a distance, as a missile blows up just before the target, and sprays it with shrapnel/force of the explosion. This seems to be very close range. If you were attacking a slow moving constant track target, you would think the pilot would have shot from a distance, especially if it was a drone w/ a camera to avoid detection/identification.

@DeLarge: Even if it was on two channels, when you lose one feed, you would lose both b/c they would be broadcasting from the same array. There is still data shown above the static(hard to see, but there), and it is changing.

Git Em SteveDave

@Git Em SteveDave: "you should approach from behind and above"
Yea, that's the way my wife prefers the approach...but, she makes me leave that 360 degree camera turned off.

(sorry, someone had to make the comment)

SgtMac02

Ok, if you freeze frame the video at the time where there is an "image" above the static, you will see that the vertical hold just goes out and you are still looking at the missle.

delithic

@packetsniffer: Thanks. Best I could do before someone else did it. Sadly, I probably can't think of a better one.

LoganSix

Occam's Razor. In the absence of contravening evidence, and the l-o-n-g track record of Russian mindset to overkill first, deny and obfuscate later ... I'd go with the evidence at hand. Beisdes, Georgia is trying to work its way into our sphere, and Russia claims Georgia is inciting a neighboring province to break with Russia. In that long train of evidence, let's not forget KAL 007 and Georgia Congressman Larry MacDonald, the Soviet's Union most vocal critic. Or, Litvinenko. Or, Politiskaya. Or, Iranian nukes, or ... or ... or ... an A/A missile from a Flogger is exactly what a Russian pilot would do.

BlackFlag55

Wouldn't that be a sitting duck?
And wouldn't a missile need a heat signature. Wait, cost analysis here is WAY costly to waste a missle on a UAV...

I agree...BS.

SigmundTheSeaMonster

The video was too poor for me to make out any distinguishing markings on either vehicle. All I know I saw was a guy with a funny accent in a foreign uniform. It could very well have been two USA owned planes and the whole thing is propaganda against Russia.

Geisrud

flew in from miami beach on a UAV, didn't get to bed last night,
all the way the MIG had a bead on me, man i had a dreadful fight

godwhacker

@Slap Bet:
LOL!!!!!

mrxcel

Most likely the "hud" imagery is constructed locally. So the place markers are still there, but it looks like the data under them went away. Though you'd think, unless it was completely autonomous, a uav pilot would have at least tried to dodge the missile. Instead they just slewed the camera to see it coming.

Barry99705

Link to the vid is not valid anymore, but here's another link to it:

+ Watch video

Mitch

Those East Bloc Migs really knock me out...they leave those UAVs behind.

offyatindy

@scarbrtj: 2 meters?
Why, that's not much bigger than a Womp Rat!

strider_mt2k

At least it wasn't a Korean civilian airliner with 269 passengers on board this time...I'd call that in improvement.

DWD

I love how half of the people are talking like they know what's up. Seriously, how many fighter pilots and /or defense analysts are actually writing on this thread? Probably closer to zero.

You guys need to stop confusing combat flight simulators with real life. It's a GAME!

carbonmotion

Damn.. that is cool.

N@tedog

@Blue387: Great minds thinks alike I guess...

baltwade

It would have been more cost effective for them to use throwing daggers. Snort.

Some of the speculation here is downright insulting.

Claystil

Further - a MIG head on with a short range A/A so the camera operator of the UAV gets a very up front and personal view of the proceedings (on tape) seems to me an obvious piece of confrontational 'smack in the kisser'. If the UAV had been shot down from behind with cannon fire, it's not the same statement politically as an in your face so you can see us doing it "Take that, you breakaway хулиган".

BlackFlag55

You'd think that would teach the Geogian's to use manned/armed recon aircraft so they don't keep getting owned like that.

vertigo

@baltwade: Hey! I posted at the same time you did!

Blue387

Also, I speculate the MiG pilot used an AA-11 or Vympel R-73 missile, similar to our AIM-9 Sidewider.

Blue387

@Git Em SteveDave: "But when you fire a missile, you usually do it from a distance... This seems to be very close range."

How far do you think the Mig is? I'm guessing that it's about two kilometers away. It took about four seconds for the missile to hit and those things aren't exactly slow.

Wikipedia* shows that the Russians have a popular small close range missile called "Vympel K-13" or AA-2 that has a minimum range of 1km and a speed or Mach 2.5. It seems only reasonable to use this weapon at this range.

[en.wikipedia.org]

*Holy crap I just quoted Wikipedia as a source.

baltwade

[en.wikipedia.org] According to wikipedia, the UAV that was shot down was an Israeli-built Hermes 450.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Gawker really needs a military blog.

Blue387

There are a lot of assumptions populating this thread. One I would like to dispel is that every person in the military (foreign/domestic) adheres completely to combat tactics in real world situations. To be honest, regardless of what "policy" states, the pilot could have just been overzealous and launched air-to air missiles in his first real engagement because hell, how often do you really get to engage real targets with a toy like a MiG29?

TOWken22

@carbonmotion: Tom Clancy had NO knowledge when he started writing, and did a good job in most peoples opinion. I have watched the History channel, as well as Top Gun, Firebirds, and Firefox. I also stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Git Em SteveDave

PWND-SKI

ShinySideUp

@baltwade: Well, the Mig has a take-off/stall speed of around 260-280 kph. The Hermes 450 has a max speed of 175 kph. That Jet would have overtaken that UAV very quickly, and you would have seen it get larger in the frame, IMHO. It almost appears to be the same size throughout. Also, the missile that hit it travels at mach 2.5 which means that it travels .84 kilometer per second. If it took four seconds, that makes it almost 3.36 kilometers away. If the Mig was traveling at 300kph it would take over 10 seconds for it to travel the same that the missile did in one. It intersects the missiles trail at about two seconds after firing. if we gave it the benefit of the doubt, it would be traveling at over 1000kph when it fired the missile. It would have zoomed past the UAV if it did that. Again, just my 2 cents.

Git Em SteveDave

@carbonmotion: But it's fun poking the tinfoil cap folks with a stick.

Barry99705

this comment thread makes me sad for humanity.

Claystil

@Fierock: Not Fake

It's all over the news. Just look under Google's World News. The video on the BBC site has a better resolution.

[news.bbc.co.uk]

baltwade

@Fierock: also, the accent and narrative by the uniformed officer seems a little akward - again I'm no linguist but his accent seems to have elements of french, german and heavy russian.

Fierock

Fake.

I know very little about aviation, hardly anything about weaponry and nothing about Russian military. But what I do have a lot of experience in is watching videos with CG elements, and truthfully this has CG feel all over it. I'm not going to analyze it pixel by pixel, but the motion of the aircraft and missile just don't seem "realistic" by my observation.

I question why Reuters would have their logo on a clip like this - a quick search on their website revealed nothing on this. I would also think that the information on the HUD would not be in English - if it was US programmers I'm sure Georgia would have had some customization and translation done to the software.

Fierock

@ShinySideUp: lol my favorite pick of the comments.

Kaiser-Machead

@baltwade: Are they referring to Eddie Izzard's bit about babies tasting of chicken and chicken tasting of humans, and putting babies on spikes?

Git Em SteveDave

@baltwade: If you fired a shot that missed, why would you re-attempt w/ another missile, rather than just bear down on the easy target with your guns. Also, and this is where I show my non-military knowledge, doesn't a pilot lock on w/the missiles targeting system before firing? A object moving in a straight track would be easy to follow, especially after locking onto the heat source. And where is the first "fly-by" video of either the missile or the jet? I would expect to see that as well as the final shot in evidence.

I could be wrong, I will say now, but this doesn't smell right. It is almost like when Bart stole the Spirit of St. Louis, and the jets couldn't attack b/c it was moving so slow. They eventually landed and chased after it with pool skimmers.

Git Em SteveDave

@Claystil: This thread is actually ok. Everyone is basically staying on topic and making interesting and somewhat informative points.
You should read the thread about the "solar-roasted chickens". They're mainly talking about what's the best way to eat babies.

baltwade

@Fierock: I agree about the CG feel. As to the UI, I wouldn't think you would need to translate all that much. Numbers are numbers the world around. As long as your pilots/operators were versed in what symbol meant what, you wouldn't need to go in an mess w/ the programming.

Git Em SteveDave

@Git Em SteveDave: The video shows the MiG flying faster than the UAV. It's just flying at a lower altitude. The camera is constantly having to pan down to keep the MiG in frame. Also when reading about this I found this interesting news bit that should explain everything.

"Georgian officials said they were fortunate to capture the fighter plane on camera, and had done so only because a first missile fired by the plane missed the drone, which has a small engine that they said made it a difficult target for a heat-seeking missile.

The pilot apparently decided to approach closer for a second shot, they said, and flew near enough for the plane to be filmed by the drone before it was destroyed."

[www.csmonitor.com]

baltwade

Also, the Soviets, errr, Russians, claim the aircraft doing the shooting was an L-39 belonging to the Abkhaz Air Force. The L-39 is a Czech-built single tailed, trainer/light combat aircraft sold all over the old Soviet Bloc. The L-39 is substantially different from a MiG29, which the video clearly shows as the aircraft in question (twin tails vs. one tail, big size difference). Yes, I first saw this on the BBC where the video is much clearer and it makes perfect sense to me. Just google either type of aircraft and you'll see the difference. No BS, this is simply good old Russian "shoot first, lie later" tactics.

beejay

Is "looses off" a new hip term I am not familiar with?

sygyzy

@Git Em SteveDave: Maybe I'm not understanding exactly what you don't believe about this story. Do you not believe it in it's entirety? There was never a UAV or a MiG, nothing was shot down and the video is a complete Fake. Or, Georgia's UAV was shot down by a MiG, but it wasn't a Russian MiG and Georgia is using this news story to gain some kind of leverage over Russia.

baltwade

@baltwade: well that link certainly gives the story much more credibility, also the video quality is much higher.

I am less skeptical now... but then, a small figment now believes this just goes way deeper down the rabbit hole.

@Git Em SteveDave: I think its the way the jet swings in behind - it appears to come in way to slow, but then again it must still be approaching at steep lateral angle. As to the language, I was thinking of the date/time indicator in the lower left - also, there was nothing about the office to make me think it couldn't have been faked in the USA.

Fierock

"Damn Maveriski! You shot down the wrong Drone!!!!"

"Merde, Father Gooseki. I should've been more careful. I became suspicious after that drone pulled a negative G pushover."

apeguero

Here we go again with the crazy conspiracy theories. I swear, some of you life your life straight out of an X-Files episode.

The REAL story: The Russians. They like to shoot things.

Dook_In_The_Urinal

If you watch the higher resolution footage on the BBC site, you'll see that the HUD remains on the screen, but the data does go blank. Obviously, the computers on the ground paint that and just fill it in with the data stream from the drone.

FreeMan

@offyatindy:
moscow migs make me scream and shout
and georgia is always on my my my my my my my my mind

godwhacker

@baltwade: I guess I don't really believe it. I think there was/is a UAV, but I don't think it was shot down like they showed. There may be more to the video that they will show that will make me change my mind, but for right now, this video seems more fake than real. I almost expect someone to show the Mig in a separate video,and they just cut and pasted it, kind of like Rising Sun, or hate to reference it, Wag the Dog.

The missile seems like overkill, the plane almost seems to get smaller after it enters the frame, there appears to be a contrail when the jet straightens out, which makes me think it was moving fast, which wouldn't make sense compared to the slow UAV, if this was a second shot, why wasn't the UAV trying to evade, i.e. drop to a real low altitude, etc...

Git Em SteveDave

@Git Em SteveDave:
@Dook_In_The_Urinal:
I can see how and why there could be a conspiracy here and why the video would have been faked.

Georgia broke away from Russia and there is no love lost between them. Abkhazia broke away (or is trying too) from Georgia and are pro-Russia. Georgia launched a UAV to spy on Abkhazia and it was shot down. Abkhazia says they shot it down and have the wreckage displayed for all at their capital (sounds like something the Romulans would do) to prove Georgia's transgression of their airspace. Georgia says Russia shot down their UAV in violation of their airspace and have said video to prove it.

Yea, there's lots of room for a little misinformation to be going on here.

That said... I believe the video is real.

baltwade

@baltwade: I think if you are trying to show how you were attacked, you would release all of the footage, as well as radar data showing a fighter approaching your UAV, and anything else. I am not saying it is a conspiracy. Just some doctored footage. I think doctoring photos is not above or below many nations. Wasn't it Russia who would add forces/weapons into photos they released of parades in Red Square?

Git Em SteveDave

They are either lying or have the worst defense. 1.) The plane was flying low...they should have been able to hear it. 2.) No plane esp. a non-stealth Mig can fly into there airspace without being detected. 3.) It is in the middle of the day, once the UAV saw the plane they should have immediately sent planes to intercept....

LIES

mricyfire

@Fierock:
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner. :)
I gotta give you props for being honest tho.

Dook_In_The_Urinal

@Git Em SteveDave: lot easier to take footage of something that did happen, without doctoring, and then fib the story. This is more than likely what's happened. Doctoring, no matter how good it is, will be exposed and this is why editing is the preferred trick of posturing nation-states.

To be honest, the only good point in this comments thread countering the authenticity of either the video or the story is "2.) No plane esp. a non-stealth Mig can fly into there airspace without being detected." This is what leads me to believe the UAV was not in Georgian airspace, but not in Russian either (they'd have called foul).

Everything else is speculation from ignorance.

Claystil

I should add, the main reason I said it was fake is so that, in the chance, it turns out to be fake then I can brag about being right.

Fierock

This very likely wasnt fake. A lot of the armchair pilots in this thread really need to talk to someone with actual experience before they post.

Cygni

what's with Russians and MIGS anyways?

oh and why the hell did they shoot down a UAV?

on second thought, WHY IS THERE A UAV?! Satellites FTW!

@Slap Bet:

LOL!!

Akmed

@Claystil: "This is what leads me to believe the UAV was not in Georgian airspace, but not in Russian either (they'd have called foul)."

I know for a fact where they were-the highway to the danger zone.

Kohono

Well, I live in this part of the world, and trust me - there is nothing surprising about this! The Russians are certainly capable of this, despite the many logical reasons why it seems pretty stupid...
Also, truth over here is a rare commodity, so it could be total BS, but when you live here you learn never to be surprised at anything the Russians do. They are a pretty scary bunch.
Based on the water in the background, looks like a shot from below to me, and don't forget these are recon. machines, so it could be using a pretty big lens so the fighter might not be as close (or as low) as it looks.
I vote real...

Eminy

@Slap Bet: Your UAV is owned!

Bilir_kisi

@strider_mt2k: Nah... it gets your point across a little better with the exhaust plume and the arc of the missle up towards the UAV.

Of course, at night, with tracer rounds, that would have had a good effect too.

But OTOH. again at night, a nice 'rocket's red glare' would be sweet.

So, I guess put me down as undecided. Unless it was a laser. That would have been cool.

ThePhantomOfTheNet